i understand where your coming from but your flooding he forum with the same threads my friend.

Jan 2, 2009 -- 9:38PM, Lebanon wrote:

If the rebels in Darfur were firing rockets into Sudanese cities and Sudan responded the way Israel did would the US support or condemn the Sudanese gov't in your opinion?  Would the US say clearly that the Sudanese gov't has a right to defend itself and to crush the rebel movement in Darfur no matter how many civilian casualties?

 

How about those posters here who support the Israeli actions, would you support the Sudanese gov't doing the same to the Darfur rebels?

They would probably weigh the pros and cons of supporting each side and do what's in their(USGOV) best interests. In the case of Sudan, the US would most likely side with the Southern Sudanese because the GOS(Government of Sudan) are in China's pocket.

I don't support Israel's actions and I wouldn't support the Sudanese doing the same to the darfur rebels.

^ its the new scramble for africa.

instead of france, britian, and belgium as major players, we have china, russia, and america.

Jan 4, 2009 -- 7:08AM, kiNYua wrote:

Jan 3, 2009 -- 1:10AM, stillmatic_01 wrote:

Jan 2, 2009 -- 9:38PM, Lebanon wrote:

If the rebels in Darfur were firing rockets into Sudanese cities and Sudan responded the way Israel did would the US support or condemn the Sudanese gov't in your opinion?  Would the US say clearly that the Sudanese gov't has a right to defend itself and to crush the rebel movement in Darfur no matter how many civilian casualties?

 

How about those posters here who support the Israeli actions, would you support the Sudanese gov't doing the same to the Darfur rebels?

 

They would probably weigh the pros and cons of supporting each side and do what's in their(USGOV) best interests. In the case of Sudan, the US would most likely side with the Southern Sudanese because the GOS(Government of Sudan) are in China's pocket.

 

I don't support Israel's actions and I wouldn't support the Sudanese doing the same to the darfur rebels.

 

 

 

First of all remember that during the north-south civil war in sudan, the US was STILL buying oil from the northern govt despite the fact that it was massacreing africans (2 million in 20 years). That's why the US was criticised for buying 'blood oil'.

Again remember darfur is to the west of sudan. The northern govt knows the south will probably cede come the referendum in 2011 and so it wants a region rich in oil (darfur) even if it means massacreing innocent civilians. On top of that darfur has gold!!

The US imo would simply side with whoever promised it oil contracts. Its that simple. Its called the FUN (FUCK U NIGGAS!!) policy of the USA. The US is bout it bout when it comes to getting that oil. Fuck what niggas do

TRUE!

I agree with those who said that overall nobody would care however i also believe that at least verbally the US would condemn the Sudanese gov'ts all out assault on Darfur rebels and would not support it like it supports the Israeli massacre of people.  It would lay the blame on the Sudanese gov't.